Freitag, 21. Oktober 2016

New Hope for Peace – Rule of the Law instead of Global Escalation for the Syria Conflict

Unser
Politikblog | 21.10.2016

(press
declaration with the request for publication)

Volker Reusing and Wolfgang Effenberger (file number 2 BvR 2174/16)

At the
18.10.2016, Volker Reusing and Wolfgang Effenberger have filed,
within the deadline of one year, a Constitutional complaint (file
number 2 BvR 2174/16) against the resolution of the Bundestags of the
03.12.2015 (file number 18/6866) on the Syria deployment of the
Bundeswehr.

The
deployment violates objectively the prohibitions of aggressive war
and disturbs the peaceful coexistence of the peoples (art. 26 Basic
Law, art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter). In June 2016, the protest by the
Syrian government has proven, that it rejects the deployment which
has neither been requested by it nor been coordinated with it. Also
the parliamentary reservation (art. 115a Basic Law) is violated,
because the consent of the Bundestag had also to be requested before
the EU resolution of the 16./17.11.2015 (file number 1420/15) on the
case of mutual defence. Furthermore, the EU clause on mutual defence
(art. 42 par. 7 TEU) has not been valid yet, because, as already the
Lisbon Judgement of the 30.06.2009 has established, before that the
EU would have to conclude, that it wants a common defence policy,
which then would need the consent by the national parliaments of all
EU member states (art. 42 par. 2 subpar. 1 TEU). At least the latter
has never happened. In addition to that, without a valid clause on
mutual defence, the EU is no system of mutual collective security;
the Bundeswehr may be deployed in combat only for the defence of the
own country and within the scope of systems of mutual collective
security (art. 24 par. 2 Basic Law). And the international alliance
in the fight against Isis is an ad hoc – alliance without any
ratified treaty and so obiously without any clause on mutual defence.
Also the Syria resolutions of the UN Securtiy Council do not legalize
the deployment, because they do just not state according to art. 42
UN Charter, that peaceful means had remained unsuccessful or
hopeless, because they particularly for that reason do not give any
authorization for military means, but in the contrary, set on
negotiations and on ever harder sanctions against Isis, against Al
Qaida, and against ever more groups of their supporters.

The
terrorist attacks in Paris of the 13.11.2015 have been below the
treshold of a militarily armed attack. The resolution on the case of
mutual defence has de facto only disattracted a significant part of
the public and of the politicians from the fact, that the Syria
deployment is a military intervention

for
values and interests (art. 42 par. 5 TEU) and for crisis intervention
(art. 43 par. 1 TEU) – corresponding with the ideology of the
„humanitarian intervention“. That ideology has developed from the
study „Self Determination in the New World Order“ of the year
1992 by the think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
and it aims provenly on making outflankable the prohibition of
aggressive war (art. 2 Abs. 4 UN Charter) and the responsibilities of
the UN Security Council. The ideology of the „humanitarian
intervention“ has been, in the last 24 years, responsible for
„colour revolutions“ and for wars including for the nearly
escalation of the Syria conflict into a world war, which has been
very narrowly averted at the 31.08.2013.

The
Constitutional complaint applies for the prohibition of the Syria
deployment also because of the world war risks of the Syria conflict,
to which Germany may not contribute in view of its peace principle
(art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law). Isis and Al Qaida provenly want to bring
about the final battle described in the Islamic Revelation, by
provoking a world war starting in Syria. Both, as well as the Muslim
Brotherhood, strive for a global caliphate, and it is obscure, in how
far the jihadists are steered by whom. A world war today would be
thermonuclear, and noone would survive it. It is threatening in view
the largely uncoordinated deployment of airforces and partly ground
forces in Syria with differing interests. Also the CNAS
paper „Defeating the Islamic State – A Bottom-Up Approach“,
considerations within the National Security Council of the USA
regarding a possible direct attack on the Syrian army, the imposition
of a no-fly zone for Syrian and Russian planes being discussed in the
USA, and the threat by russia to
shoot down planes endangering the Russian troops, would, if
implemented, lead into the world war. At the 31.08.2013, the global
escalation has been avoided very narrowly, because in connection with
the chemical weapon incident at Ghouta of the 21.08.2013, the USA
have been informed just in time regarding the Russian warning, in
case of US airstrikes against Syria, Russia would retaliate against
Saudi-Arabia. Also the downing of a Russian plane over Syria by
Turkey and the bombardement of Syrian troops in Deir Azzur could
easily have escalated into world war.

The
resolution by the Bundestag of the 03.12.2015 and the resolution on
the case of mutual defence by the Defence Ministers of the EU member
states of the 16./17.11. 2015 have disregarded the provisions of the
Lisbon Judgement how to interpret the prescriptions of the TEU on the
Common Foreign and Safety Policy (CFSP) in conformity with the UN
Charter. So the Constitutional complaints claims, in order to achieve
legal safety for the peace order of the United Nations as well as for
the existence of the European Union, to oblige the Federal
Government, to apply in the UN General Assembly for an advisory
opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the following
question:

„How
exactly has the interpretation of the norms of the Treaty on the
European Union (TEU) on military interventions for values and
interests (art. 42 par. 5 TEU), on military interventions for
interference into crises (art. 43 par. 1 TEU), and the EU clause on
mutual assistance (art. 42 par. 7 TEU), which is still not ratified
according to art. 42 par. 2 subpar. 1 TEU, each to be limited into
conformity with the UN Charter and with the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR), in order to completely exclude any possibility
to violate art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter, art. 103 UN Charter, or art. 29
no. 3 UDHR, by means of these norms, and in order to, at the same
time, exclude the risk of voidness of the TEU according to art. 53
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties because incompability with
the UN Charter and with the UDHR, which belong to the „ius
cogens“?“

The
Constitutional complaint, in addition to that, applies to state the
voidness of the TEU according to art. 53 VCLT for incompability of
the TEU with the UN Charter, which belongs to the „ius cogens“,
in view of the application of the CFSP in the resolution of the
16./17.11.2015, which is incompatible with the UN Charter. The
establishment of the voidness of an international treaty, however,
can always only be the last resort, if an interpretation in
conformity with the „ius cogens“ is not possible.

The
Constitutional complaint applies, because of the undemocratically
strong influence of the think tank SWP and, besides that, of the
Bilderberg conference, on the German position on Syria, to exclude
think tanks from international conferences with German participation
on foreign and safety policy, and to admit for the counselling of
German institutions regarding foreign and safety policy only those
think tanks, whose recommendations do neither violate the Basic Law
nor the UN Charter, with a special attention to the prohibitions of
aggressive war and its preparation (art. 26 Basic Law, art. 2 par. 4
UN Charter) and on the inviolable peace principle (art. 1 par. 2
Basic Law), and which do not counsel other countries at the same
time.

In
view of hundredthousands of people, who have immigrated into Germany
since 2015 without registration, among them an at least four digit
number of jihadists, in view of the jihadist „Blitzkrieg“ in
Germany and Europe, prognosticated for 2016 by a former member of
Isis, and meanwhile begun, and because Germany has got, with its
direct military involvement in Syria, even more into the focus of
Isis, the Constitutional complaint demands, that all people, who have
immigrated into Germany since 2015, have to be biometrically
registered, and that their data have to be compared with the list,
which Great Britain has, with the already detected stolen and
falsified passport identities along the refugee routes (among them in
Macedonia), and with terrorists wanted under criminal law by the
Syria, by the claimed home country, or wanted internationally. That
protects the German population, but also the refugees, the majority
of whom including women and children are peaceful, it provides
clarity regarding the extent of the jihadist threat in Germany, and
it contributes to the humanitarian supply of all refugees during
their stay in Germany, also in order to reduce, as much as possible,
the number of those, who, because of material emergency, see no other
way than to join Isis.

Because
of the missing legal bases for the Syria deployment and of the world
war risks connected to the Syria conflict, and also because of the
lacking ability, regarding soldiers and equipment, to defend the
territory of the own country against a jihadist attack, the complaint
appeals, by means of interim injunction, to immediately get back the
German troops already sent to Syria, and to prohibit the deployment
of any further troops there. In addition to that, the Constitutional
complaint appeals to restore the ability of Germany to defend its own
territory (art. 87a par. 1 Basic Law) related to a realistic threat
analysis.

The
complaint refers to the human dignity (art. 1 par. 1 Basic Law) in
connection to the peace principle (art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law), and to
the basic right to vote (art. 38 Basic Law), to the basic rights to
life, to physical integrity, and to freedom (art. 2 Basic Law), to
the function reservation (art. 33 par. 4 Basic Law), as well as to
the universal human rights to security (art. 9 ICCPR), to health
(art. 12 CESCR), and to the prohibition of war propaganda (art. 20
par. 1 ICCPR).

The
Constitutional complaint also directs itself against art. 93d par. 1
s. 3 BVerfGG, according to which the Constitutional Court can make
non-admittances of Constitutional complaints also without any
explanation. This prescription makes feasible to completely obscure,
if the court has orderly applied the admittance criteria of art. 93a
BVerfGG. So art. 93d par. 1 s. 3 BVerfGG is incompatible with the
human dignity (art. 1 par. 1 Basic Law), with equlity (art. 3 Basic
Law), with the guaran-tee of the course of law (art. 19 par. 4 Basic
Law), with the basic right to vote (art. 38 Basic Law), with the
equality before the courts (art. 14 ICCPR), and with the equality
before the law (art. 26 ICCPR).

The
plaintiffs and the representative applied for by them (art. 22 par. 1
s. 4 BVerfGG) are available for an interview at any time.

picture:
Volker Reusing and Wolfgang Effenberger after filing the complaint,
in the background the building of the Constitutional Court